EVE Search - [ISSUE] Speed Setups aka Nanos

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[ISSUE] Speed Setups aka Nanos

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page

Author	Topic
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.22 07:45:00 - [61] I dont support nerfing nanos, I cant stand them, but I dont support nerfing them either. BUT, they need to have counters that actually work, webs and neuts (med neuts NOT BS sized) SHOULD be brought up to speed. They have always and should alays be the main counters to nanos, but they got left behind. As the minimum orbiting range of nanos has increased the maximum range of webs and neuts hasnt increased enough to counter them. http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=803693
Benedic The Aftermath	Posted - 2008.06.22 14:35:00 - [62] Adapt or die, not signed.
Big Al Stoat's Ultimate Carebear Adventure	Posted - 2008.06.22 14:37:00 - [63] Just no. Without nano setups solo/small gang roaming against skillblobs becomes even more painful than it already is.
Rakshasa Taisab Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2008.06.22 16:58:00 - [64] This, or at least give us proper heavy prec missiles.
Lucias Trask Shadows of the Dead	Posted - 2008.06.22 17:18:00 - [65] Edited by: Lucias Trask on 22/06/2008 17:21:25 Son of a a*****... nano-whining again? Here let me just help you out as little... howe to kill every nano ship out there. 1) Killing Vagas/All nano ships. -Use a Rapier/Huginn to slow it down. -Use a Curse to suck its cap dry, cant go MWD with no cap. -get a few interceptors on it (Crows are really fast) using a falcon to jam it, and slow it down, then blow it up. 2) Killing Ishtars. -Kill the drones. Ishtar then runs away cause it now sucks. BUT, get the above mentioned ships on it and bam, it dies. IS your BS fleet going to kill a group of good nano-ships? No, probably not unless the nano pilot screws up. But can nanos kill a RR BS gang? Not a chance in hell. IF you dont want to fly nano, but you do want to kill them, bring a mixed fleet. Get a few interceptors, grab some Recons and a few HACs, they dont have to be nano'd. Smart flying and using tactics can stop a nano ship[ in its tracks, it is much more likely if you stay together, send out the inties to tackle and jam with Falcons, you will live thorugh the encounter. There now stop whning and adapt. [PANIC]
Chi Quan Perkone	Posted - 2008.06.22 19:22:00 - [66] supporting this. CCP needs to address this issue FAST or everybody jumps on the nano bandwagon (and i really mean EVERYBODY) and the same situation like the announced carrier/mom nerf arises, when a gigabtic blob thread altered (or delayed) CCPs decision. ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.06.22 22:10:00 - [67] Originally by: JVol I dont support nerfing nanos, I cant stand them, but I dont support nerfing them either. BUT, they need to have counters that actually work, webs and neuts (med neuts NOT BS sized) SHOULD be brought up to speed. They have always and should alays be the main counters to nanos, but they got left behind. As the minimum orbiting range of nanos has increased the maximum range of webs and neuts hasnt increased enough to counter them. http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=803693 Range is not enough. Agility mod needs to be addressed as well. See Nyphur address this here
Lieutenant Isis Gristle Industries	Posted - 2008.06.22 22:30:00 - [68] Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:30:42 I support. Just think of how stupid something the size of a nuclear aircraft carrier accelerating to 5000+ meters per second in little under a few seconds is. Lets say that's about 1000 m/s^2, which is a killer 100Gs: 10 times more than any human can withstand without being turned into chunky salsa. In fact even the space shuttle, despite the 12MN (that's MegaNewtons, the same unit of measure that the MWD and AB use; essentially the space shuttle has a Cruiser sized AB fitted) that its engines put out, it only accelerates at a slow 3 Gs. Basically the speeds are fine imo, its the rate at which you can alter your speed that needs to be changed. I think that the easiest way to do this is to increase the mass penalty to MWD. EDIT: typos.
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.22 22:54:00 - [69] Originally by: Lieutenant Isis Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:53:33 Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:52:19 Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:30:42 I support. Just think of how stupid something the size of a nuclear aircraft carrier accelerating to 5000+ meters per second in little under a few seconds is. Lets say that's about 1000 m/s^2, which is a killer 100Gs: 10 times more than any human can withstand without being turned into chunky salsa. In fact even the space shuttle, despite the 12MN (that's MegaNewtons, the same unit of measure that the MWD and AB use; essentially the space shuttle has a Cruiser sized AB fitted) that its engines put out, it only accelerates at a slow 3 Gs. Basically the speeds are fine imo, its the rate at which you can alter your speed that needs to be changed. I think that the easiest way to do this is to increase the mass penalty to MWD. EDIT: typos. EDIT2: to give you a better comparison of the size of things involved here checkout these two links: [url=http://go-dl3.eve-files.com/media/corp/SFC/EVE-ships.jpg]http://go-dl3.eve-files.com/media/corp/SFC/EVE-ships.jpg[/url] [url=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tanker-size-comparison.png]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tanker-size-comparison.png [/url] Also I though you might like to know before you flame me that I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. EDIT3: I fail at linking :( In case you hadn't noticed, Eve Physics =/= RL Physics.
Lieutenant Isis Gristle Industries	Posted - 2008.06.22 22:58:00 - [70] Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:58:53 If you're so willing to bend the rules to allow MWD, then why not bend the rules to allow guns to track at 1080 deg/sec so I can hit your nano ship? The tracking limits were imposed based on "real" physics.

Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.22 23:12:00 - [71] Edited by: Dianeces on 22/06/2008 23:12:29 Originally by: Lieutenant Isis Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 22/06/2008 22:58:53 If you're so willing to bend the rules to allow MWD, then why not bend the rules to allow guns to track at 1080 deg/sec so I can hit your nano ship? The tracking limits were imposed based on "real" physics. Spaceship max speed crew checkin' in. Keep grasping, maybe you'll find something if you try hard enough.
Lieutenant Isis Gristle Industries	Posted - 2008.06.22 23:27:00 - [72] Well of course there are limits because the game has to be playable, for instance warp speed and jumpgates; however that does not mean we need to turn EVE in a fantasy-land. You can go to WoW for that.
Lokche	Posted - 2008.06.22 23:30:00 - [73] Edited by: Lokche on 22/06/2008 23:31:00 Chance to Hit=1/2^(A*B/C/D/E+MAX(0,(E-F)/G)) A=Target's speed B=Turret's signature resolution C=Turret's tracking speed D=Target's signature radius E=Target's distance F=Turret's optimal range G=Turret's falloff range An unskilled Target Painter I increases a target's signature radius by 25%. An Overdrive Injector II increases a target's speed by 20%. Think long and hard about the implications of this. Edit: grammar
Hori To Kinda'Shujaa	Posted - 2008.06.23 00:58:00 - [74] is there a reason why t2 nanofibers are equal to t1 polycarbs? aux thrusters add less speed then t2 overdrives? why, not bring nanofibers and polycarbs in line? that would reduce speed slightly, and make non-speedy ships less speedy? nanoing needs to stay as a valid style of play, but some ships just move to fast tbh. And the agility thing that nyphur wrote about, I didn't know that, but it looks like something someone needs to take a closer look at.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.06.23 02:20:00 - [75] Edited by: Nyphur on 23/06/2008 02:20:19 Originally by: Hori To And the agility thing that nyphur wrote about, I didn't know that, but it looks like something someone needs to take a closer look at. I expanded on it in an article for massively here. It's definitely something that needs looked into. Pillowsoft - Join the Pillowsoft Gallente Militia, get free ships and support.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.06.23 04:30:00 - [76] Originally by: Nyphur Edited by: Nyphur on 23/06/2008 02:20:19 Originally by: Hori To And the agility thing that nyphur wrote about, I didn't know that, but it looks like something someone needs to take a closer look at. I expanded on it in an article for massively here. It's definitely something that needs looked into. I keep forgetting to link that one instead of the original OP ;)
Dr Corvidae	Posted - 2008.06.23 05:10:00 - [77] I read Nyphr's idea and it is intriquing. However, would it not be much simpler to have the benefits of nano mods affected by the mass of the ship? An interceptor having little mass, has the nano mods affected very little and the nano mods are largly unaffected; while a battleship/battlecruiser etc with much greater mass will have its speed modified very little by the nanomods. These numbers have been pulled out of the air but for the sake of illustrating the idea: Interceptor 100 tons = speed/agility boost 100% of the module. Battleship 1,000,00 tons = speed/agility boost 10% of the module. tl;dr version. Small ship, little mass = fast, large increase to speed big ship, huge mass = slow, small increase to speed
Irongut M'8'S Frontal Impact	Posted - 2008.06.23 05:51:00 - [78] Not being able to go fast would take the fun out of the game for many of the players. Nano setups are not overpowered and do not make you the next best thing to invulnerable. Mission runners playing FW have 2 weeks experience at pvp, they should lose to experienced fleets of 4+ year old pvp characters. Nanos, Inertia Stabs and Overdrives have already been nerfed and do not need another one. - Join Frontal Impact Racing Team & feel the speed!
Franga NQX Innovations	Posted - 2008.06.23 08:27:00 - [79] Originally by: Lucias Trask 1) Killing Vagas/All nano ships. -Use a Rapier/Huginn to slow it down. -Use a Curse to suck its cap dry, cant go MWD with no cap. -get a few interceptors on it (Crows are really fast) using a falcon to jam it, and slow it down, then blow it up. Yes, yes. To fix the problems, just train a certain ship. Exactly what a 'sandbox' game should do, force you down a certain path. Genius. Originally by: Rachel Vend ... with 100% reliability in most cases ...
Franga NQX Innovations	Posted - 2008.06.23 08:31:00 - [80] Originally by: Big Al Just no. Without nano setups solo/small gang roaming against skillblobs becomes even more painful than it already is. Unfortunately, this is also true. Originally by: Rachel Vend ... with 100% reliability in most cases ...

Nathan West Cataclysm Enterprises HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.06.23 11:38:00 - [81] The main imbalance is the amount of mods increasing speed and mods allowing to kill a fast moving ship. The only way to kill a nanoship is to web it, other counters e.g. ecm, neuts will just scare it off. One mod to kill a nano and except for a ganglink claymore no way to boost its effectiveness. There are no rigs or other modules boosting web range or velocity penalty. On the other hand you have nanofibres, overdrives, polycarbs and aux thrusters all increasing speed. My proposal is to release mods and rigs to increase web range. That way if you want to effectly counter a nano you will need to sacrifice dps and tank, just as a nanoship does to get its speed.
Siigari Kitawa The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2008.06.23 11:42:00 - [82] Originally by: Synapse Archae Nano ships are ridiculously expensive, and should have abilities to match their cost. Nano ships are expensive because they are inherently good. www.siigarikitawa.com
Thirzarr	Posted - 2008.06.23 13:05:00 - [83] I do not think eve needs less speed. Actually more speed, more maneuvering and such would be lovely. Yes, I want more dynamic fights. Like the battleships in the Video's zooooooooming by in formtion. * Remove 20km scramblers. * Fix precision Missiles & other T2 Ammo to WORK against stuff like this.
Reash Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 14:16:00 - [84] Support pushing for this to be looked at, though i think its a very very complicated issue. From my point of view the issue is not the speed tank (in fact i like that this variation exists). I think the problem is how fast they move (yes i know, sounds like i am contradicting myself) Speed for nanos gives them 2 advantages 1. Speed tank makes them difficult to hit. 2. Speed allowing for very very very fast escapes. To solve the problem i believe nanos have i think a rebalance to make the nano ships a bit more difficult to hit (reduce sig by quite a lot maybe?), while at the same time removing a lot of the speed they have allowing them for very fast escapes, of course they should still be faster than a regular cruiser setups but i don't think they should be matching interceptor speeds. Now, i admit this is a complex issue and my idea might not be great, but i certainly think nano fitted cruisers need looking at quite seriously. ----------------------- Auctoritan Syndicate Director
oilio State War Academy	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:02:00 - [85] Nerf nanos... well, some of them. Ships that are built for speed should be left as they are. Ships that were never meant to go super-fast should be restricted. An analogy would be ECM. These days, only ships that were designed to use ECM modules can use them effectively. Fitted to other ships, the effect is poor. I think it should be the same for speed setups. If a ship was designed for speed, then it should be left alone. If the ship wasn't primarily designed for speed, then it should have more restrictions placed on the maximum speed it can attain. However they decide to address the nano issue, I hope they're careful about it. This one could be a right mess if it isn't thought through properly.
Trojanman190 D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:03:00 - [86] Edited by: Trojanman190 on 23/06/2008 18:02:52 The whole point of a nano setup is picking your fights, speed tanking does not work nearly as well as everyone tries to say it does. Nanos allow a gang of 5 pvpers to have fun in 0.0 because we can escape the 30 man blobs. You remove nanos or make them weaker in any way and you will see 0.0 get very boring very quickly.
Reash Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 18:57:00 - [87] Originally by: Trojanman190 Edited by: Trojanman190 on 23/06/2008 18:02:52 The whole point of a nano setup is picking your fights, speed tanking does not work nearly as well as everyone tries to say it does. Nanos allow a gang of 5 pvpers to have fun in 0.0 because we can escape the 30 man blobs. You remove nanos or make them weaker in any way and you will see 0.0 get very boring very quickly. I find it rare that they are used that way, i often see Nano groups in large gangs preying on lone targets before they have a chance to run. But it is beside the point. Wanting immunity is not a good reason to consider something balanced. I am all for nano ships having a speed advantage, a lot of us just currently feel that the speed nano cruisers can achieve is much faster than should be possible froma cruiser. ----------------------- Auctoritan Syndicate Director
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:05:00 - [88] Originally by: Trojanman190 Edited by: Trojanman190 on 23/06/2008 18:02:52 The whole point of a nano setup is picking your fights, speed tanking does not work nearly as well as everyone tries to say it does. Nanos allow a gang of 5 pvpers to have fun in 0.0 because we can escape the 30 man blobs. You remove nanos or make them weaker in any way and you will see 0.0 get very boring very quickly. Remember... a nerf to nanos is NOT what is being asked. What is being asked is that a buff to the nano counters (webs neuts) be put in place so that the nano is not an "I win button" because that is what it has become. Nano's are going for the price they are because the demand is there for them. The demand is there because they are literally.. almost unbeatable except in a very stacked situation. And even then, a skilled nano pilot often will escape. Change the agility mod on webs so that the bigger the ship is, the quicker it deaccerlates. That way when a web catches a nano BS... it stops dead in it's tracks.
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:21:00 - [89] Edited by: Avon on 23/06/2008 19:21:09 Dual MWD's were removed because speed tanking was unbalanced. It is still unbalanced. Faster ships should have reduced agility, factored by sig radius or mass (sig would be better because it would better suit the role bonus of certain ships). Speed freaks retain the ability to run away very quicky, but lose the ability to pound ships whilst dodging tracking and outrunning missiles. Or, add another module to increase the mass, or decrease the agility of a ship - because webs just aren't up to the job when the target can just coast out of web range. Whatever the solution, something needs to be done to address the balance. Small ships going fast I can live with, but the bigger you are the slower you should be, and certainly much, much, much less agile. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Valkorsia Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:34:00 - [90] Don't nerf nano, boost ALL race interceptors so they can't be outrun by nano HACs. Problem solved.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.